D&D General Should players be aware of their own high and low rolls?

[Bill Zebub]

no thank you we are very happy with no PvP

you missed the issues that some of the groups don't even let players narrate there own actions...

right and as long as the table agree good for them.

I just don't see the reason to jump through hoops when I can just talk to my players and say what I don't want... aka PvP

it isn't harder, it's just not needed if you just talk

If your players also don't want PvP then none of this matters, right? You didn't even have to talk to them.

But if some of them do, sometimes, maybe very rarely, wish they could PvP, then you are preventing them from playing the game the way they want to play. They are complying with your orders, but they don't like it.

This approach can give players an outlet to let off some PvP steam without it being an outright ban.

I suspect from your previous posts that this explanation is going to slam against an unyielding wall of disinterest, but I used to also have an outright ban on PVP until I tried this, and maybe somebody else reading this will be inspired to try one of the best DM techniques I've ever picked up on these forums.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I go the opposite direction: anything goes. Kill each other if you want to. But it stays in character, or people get punted.

yeah we decided after a couple of times doing that we didn't like it.

We still work against each other sometimes... I may back NPC A for the throne and you back NPC B but it will never come down to dice rolls between us... just RP and be happy.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If your players also don't want PvP then none of this matters, right? You didn't even have to talk to them.

so how would I try it?
To try it I would have to say "Hey you know that thing we all decided years ago to just say no to... lets try this house rule from some guy on the internet that likes it"

But if some of them do, sometimes, maybe very rarely, wish they could PvP, then you are preventing them from playing the game the way they want to play. They are complying with your orders, but they don't like it.

I don't give orders.. We are friends. We are equals. in fact I bet everyone would get a good laugh if I Tried to give an order.

This approach can give players an outlet to let off some PvP steam without it being an outright ban.

okay, but we don't want PvP...

I suspect from your previous posts that this explanation is going to slam against an unyielding wall of disinterest, but I used to also have an outright ban on PVP until I tried this, and maybe somebody else reading this will be inspired to try one of the best DM techniques I've ever picked up on these forums.

it sounds like YOU gave an order to ban somethign your players wanted... that isn't how my tables work

 

[Bill Zebub]

So this system has plenty of metagaming. And also plenty of "roleplaying" in the sense of players being bound by outcomes in the play of their PCs. The two are not at odds.

Although I have explored the Torchbearer/BW/Mouseguard system (with a lot of help from you and your gang) and have decided it doesn't really scratch my RPG itch...at least, not yet...I still really like the above statement. I feel like the anti-metagamers have latched onto a very weird, very specific definition of roleplaying and don't consider anything else to be "real" roleplaying.

It would be like meeting somebody from a secluded country where "football" (the soccer meaning) has evolved differently, and has all kinds of weird rules, including one that no part of the body other than the feet may ever be used, not even by the goalie. "It's called FOOTball," they argue, "if you are using anything other than your feet you are not really playing football. You are cheating. Or playing some other game that isn't football."

 

[Bill Zebub]

so how would I try it?
To try it I would have to say "Hey you know that thing we all decided years ago to just say no to... lets try this house rule from some guy on the internet that likes it"

"Some guy on the Internet"? Do you know who I am? DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?

I don't give orders.. We are friends. We are equals. in fact I bet everyone would get a good laugh if I Tried to give an order.

okay, but we don't want PvP...

it sounds like YOU gave an order to ban somethign your players wanted... that isn't how my tables work

WTF? Then why are you even engaging in a discussion about an alternative to banning PvP? Maybe I misinterpreted what you wrote, but I thought you were saying that you are perfectly happy with banning PvP and don't need a more complicated rule that accomplishes the same thing. But it sounds like you don't actually have or need a ban, because you and your friends all agree. So....?

And we don't have any such rule in my current group, at least that I'm aware of. (I'm not a founding member; maybe it pre-dates me.). It has just never come up; nobody has ever attacked anybody else.

But when I DM'd some high school students a while ago, I decided to try @iserith's rule.

 

[Oofta]

If you also are opposed to PvP I would recommend you try @iserith's approach. It's pretty amazing in practice.



I don't understand why it would ever result in that, if everybody understands the rules.

I mean, it's exactly like the anti-metagaming thing: both are house rules, and when you sit down to play and the DM describes the house rules, staying at the table means you consent to the rules, right?

And unlike the player knowledge/metagaming thing, there's no room for misinterpretation: I may disagree with the DM about whether or not my character "would know" something, but @iserith's PvP rule is absolutely clear cut: if you take a hostile action toward another PC, they narrate the outcome. There's not really any wiggle room or grey areas there. If you have agreed to this, "I hit you!" is a breach of that social contract.

Tell me how that's different/harder to enforce than an agreement to not use player knowledge?

I find the easiest way to handle PvP is to just tell players that it's not allowed. If a PC attacks another PC, the attacking player immediately becomes an NPC (after reminding the player of the rule of course). Same way with evil. I'll never tell a player that their PC can't go bad, but if they do they become and NPC since I don't want evil PCs in my game.

But I don't see how this has any connection to metagaming, they're separate topics other than that it should be discussed as a group how you want to handle it.

 

[pemerton]

It would be like meeting somebody from a secluded country where "football" (the soccer meaning) has evolved differently, and has all kinds of weird rules, including one that no part of the body other than the feet may ever be used, not even by the goalie. "It's called FOOTball," they argue, "if you are using anything other than your feet you are not really playing football. You are cheating. Or playing some other game that isn't football."

Also a bit like someone who really likes grapefruit juice deciding, more-or-less arbitrarily, that nothing else counts as juice, or even as a beverage. That all the people out there drinking orange juice, or creaming soda, or whatever, aren't really drinking at all.

It's pretty bizarre.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I find the easiest way to handle PvP is to just tell players that it's not allowed. If a PC attacks another PC, the attacking player immediately becomes an NPC (after reminding the player of the rule of course). Same way with evil. I'll never tell a player that their PC can't go bad, but if they do they become and NPC since I don't want evil PCs in my game.

But I don't see how this has any connection to metagaming, they're separate topics other than that it should be discussed as a group how you want to handle it.

The commonality is that both are versions of telling players "You may not declare that action." Which some of us believe are not part of 5e.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Also a bit like someone who really likes grapefruit juice deciding, more-or-less arbitrarily, that nothing else counts as juice, or even as a beverage. That all the people out there drinking orange juice, or creaming soda, or whatever, aren't really drinking at all.

It's pretty bizarre.

Yes.

I latched onto the football example because a big part of their argument seems to be, "It's called a Roleplaying game, therefore [insert crazy talk]."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

WTF? Then why are you even engaging in a discussion about an alternative to banning PvP?

um to show that the group should just talk and make it what they want...

Maybe I misinterpreted what you wrote, but I thought you were saying that you are perfectly happy with banning PvP and don't need a more complicated rule that accomplishes the same thing.

that is correct... by ban I mean we all just don't... if for some reason someone forgot we would all talk about it (as equals)

But it sounds like you don't actually have or need a ban, because you and your friends all agree. So....?

so that is how it is banned... just like if timorrow someone wanted to stop having gnomes we would all talk and have to all agree...

But when I DM'd some high school students a while ago, I decided to try @iserith's rule.

that is great, I even said it sounded good for that... I just think you COULD HAVE JUST BEEN DIRECT...not that you should have, not that you did anything wrong... that talking is an option, now you were playing with kids so I guess my "talk like adults" is not going to work.